We're climbing a ladder towards PCVR nirvana and we're on the first rung. Seems to me people are complaining about not getting to the 3rd rung because, holy shit, a second rung just appeared. And yes, it's a necessary 2nd step that allows people to run CV1 games at the same settings at higher res without higher spec PCs, so is all about attracting more people and some existing CV1 users. Increasing PCVR user base increases software developer involvement, increasing titles available for all headsets.... enthusiast and mainstream alike. This is something no enthusiast headset can do, as we've seen, because of the very small sales numbers of those devices.

OK so some people can only look at the things that aren't fantastic... and will list only those things. Some will list only the good things and there's plenty that's good.

So yeah, I'm off. I'll return when I have a Rift-S to review and will give it a balanced and thorough testing.

People souldn't underestimate how important the sound is for VR immersion.

I don't want to ear the external sounds when I play, that breaks the immersion and the sound (spatialisation, bass) won't be as good as the original.An external headphones is a real pain to use (already tried that with the Gear VR) and I hate earbuds (not to mention their poor sound quality).

I agree the riftS is not for the likes of existing VR users really
however for new people who are not yet invested in VR... Despite my
genuine dissapointment at the RiftS i can totally see why oculus want
this device on the market.... and whilst the rift s may not have the
best resolution, it may not have the best tracking, it may not have the
best FOV....... as an overall package, and because imo the oculus
infrastructure is the best (ASW was out for years whilst valve played
catchup and we are now on the cusp of ASW 2.0 which will open the gap
again), for $400 i still think it is probably the best over all package
for the mainstream PC gamer who just wants a system which "just works".

I
just wish there was a high end equivalent for those happy to splash a
bit more cash and with the rig to back it up

(but then there is a place for the GTX 1060 in the market place as well.... but i still dont want one in my rig )

Not sure what to say but disappointed it feels like the original people who invested in oculus not longer matter, may be this is true in the larger scheme of things, but it still stings.

Waiting 3 years for an exciting update and we get a Go with tracking, hmm. Well I had a Go and had to return it due headaches which I never have with the rift.

I like the inside out tracking but thats all. Where is the following: 140 degree field of view, they have lenses that can do this from 2017 referenced by Carmack in his OC4 Talk. Why not the same resolution as the QuestWhy not the Quest Screens with full IDP adjustment not software

I would have been over the moon if they had done that, instead a race to the bottom.

Yes they have given up their lead for mainstream. After hearing all the technology they have been working on its a huge disappointment. They do not have a product that can compete in 2019 Resolution doesn't even match the competitions from a year ago. No eye tracking for better focus. I have loved my RIFT and have been loyally waiting and now I feel I have no choice but to switch camps. The resolution (crispness (screen door affect) and colors) in the Rift have kept me wanting. The manual IPD was huge for me as I have a very low IPD and have had very negative feedback from other Windows MR headset users. The RIFT was also very efficient giving the best performance it could from what others have told me Windows MR is a bit of a hog. Also I have a number of friends who have gone to Windows MR and their setup experience was way more difficult (picky) than my OCULUS. I had mine up and running in 10min so not sure why they say the setup will be easier. OCULUS Rift does have a great setup process and others it seems leaves it for you to figure out and install the pieces you need. To me OCULUS responded to the cries of their PC VR customers by taking a Quest and hooking a cable to it.

There really should not be any complaints about the Rift S at all. It's the new Rift CV1 at a cost effective price for newcomers. These incremental upgrades or revisions happen all the time with electronic goods, Xbox , Playstation etc. even PSVR had a slight upgrade but remained the same device and Rift S follows suit. Oculus are not forcing anyone to ditch their original Rift's to buy the S version. And it doesn't sound like there are too many compelling reasons to do so either as an existing Rifter. There are Pros and Cons for each device it seems. It would be a different story if the original Rift was still the flagship device in terms of new sales getting more folks into the ecosystem. It's not, it's being phased out mostly and replaced because it's quite old now. I agree though, a £299 price point would be killer but I expect that around Xmas 2019 maybe.

Oculus have been very clear what Rift S represents. It's not Rift 2, therefore people should calm down a little and reevaluate their current choices. Quest on the other hand looks like something rather special to fill the void whilst waiting for a new toy to play with until a proper Rift 2 announcement is made (we know it's being worked on and might hear some more at F8). You can quote me here but.

"Rift S is designed for people who don't want to F*** about." 👌

I think the issue is they don't have a high end product for those of us who want it. They were number one and have given it up for main stream middle of the road product. Where is the high end option.

Woa, I wouldn't go that far to call it that. I am not happy with it - but it's NOT that BAD. I think some people might take it a bit too far after reading some of the top comment people as well. Here listen - I don't think Rift S is a bad product. It DOES have a lot of good points about it. The new tracking system is still light years a head of the old tracking as far as setup goes and a in and out experience. For a new user coming into VR - Rift S makes sense - it just isn't for everyone and there are just some trade offs from a generation one user that just doesn't make sense and seems backwards. Just because we think it's backwards doesn't mean the S stands for that. If anything, people making claims like that should be ban from the forums. That is just 100% wrong and false.

It's not the high-end shiny new toy that existing Rift CV1 owners dreamed of after 3 years, but it's also not the Rift CV2, so we shouldn't go Full Derp with our criticisms. The situation is still great in terms of making the overall Oculus Platform the Number 1 leading platform worldwide. The problem some of us face is that worldwide audiences are not extremists looking for the most expensive and highest end setups.

#1 - Lack of outside-in tracking (was hoping for something of the level of tracking that the vive has without having to plug 3 usb sensors in and all the hell that comes with that because of crappy motherboards/cords etc.)#2 - Lack of a physical IPD adjustment#3 - No option to set your refresh rate to 90 Hz#4 - Lack of quality headphone included with the headset

My first thought is don't knock it 'till you try it.

IS Echo Arena unplayable with inside-out? No one has yet said.

Because IPD adjustment is digital doesn't mean you can't make it exact.

Are you going to notice a difference between 80 and 90hz? So far no one seems to.

I don't like that integrated headphones aren't part of it either, but I just might end up liking it better since there is nothing against the ears. There's always been something a tiny bit unnerving to me about not seeing or hearing my outside environment at the same time. I had a Go once, very briefly so I don't remember at even the slightest how good the audio was/wasn't.

Are you going to notice a difference between 80 and 90hz? So far no one seems to.

Would you consciously notice the difference between 80 and 70 Hz on a LCD (LCDs are flicker-free); would you notice the difference between 70 and 60 Hz on a LCD? I bet many persons wouldn't.

Hz (=fps in 1:1 vsync scenarios) isn't about your conscious experience of smoothness - it's about subconsciously tricking your brain into believing something virtual is real. And it's about movement - why would any gamer want a monitor capable of 120, 144 or 240 Hz? Are they all crazy or simply misguided? And VR users should be happy for 80 Hz?

My big concern is the button and the head band behind the head that I think will make the Rift S uncomfortable for a sitting experience for more than 30 minutes. I guess that most of the testers will test it standing up.

Well they didn't listen to the people who told them the CV1's
IPD range was too narrow (or more precisely, too small), when they
decided to narrow it further down with the CV1-S...

But can you tell me more about the
"Adjustable eye relief for glasses wearers", since I believe the main
reason for not including that in the CV1 was that the CV1 had a physical
IPD slider, and this time they seem to have switched one for the other ?

...But can you tell me more about the
"Adjustable eye relief for glasses wearers", since I believe the main
reason for not including that in the CV1 was that the CV1 had a physical
IPD slider, and this time they seem to have switched one for the other ?

The headset can be adjusted forward/backward on the headband to get it closer to or further from your face. It looks like it has quite a bit of movement (they play with it in the Tested video, I believe). Whether this will be enough to compensate for the lack of physical IPD adjustment remains to be seen.

We're climbing a ladder towards PCVR nirvana and we're on the first rung. Seems to me people are complaining about not getting to the 3rd rung because, holy shit, a second rung just appeared. And yes, it's a necessary 2nd step that allows people to run CV1 games at the same settings at higher res without higher spec PCs, so is all about attracting more people and some existing CV1 users. Increasing PCVR user base increases software developer involvement, increasing titles available for all headsets.... enthusiast and mainstream alike. This is something no enthusiast headset can do, as we've seen, because of the very small sales numbers of those devices.

OK so some people can only look at the things that aren't fantastic... and will list only those things. Some will list only the good things and there's plenty that's good.

So yeah, I'm off. I'll return when I have a Rift-S to review and will give it a balanced and thorough testing.

Carry on!

The problem is the rift S is not the 2nd rung, it is a box the same height of the first rung, that results you in stepping off the ladder and remaining at the same height, but unfortunately the box was made very cheaply and it collapsed under your feet. Oh no.

The headset can be adjusted forward/backward on the headband to get it closer to or further from your face. It looks like it has quite a bit of movement (they play with it in the Tested video, I believe). Whether this will be enough to compensate for the lack of physical IPD adjustment remains to be seen.

Thank you. My first VR home experience was with the Gear VR (because it was released before the CV1), and when I received the CV1 my first reaction was "why the hell does my ~600$ CV1 not have the focus slider of a basic 99$ GearVR ?".

Seems that what I need, is not an IPD slider, as much as a wider CV1-S with a focus slider. But for most people I would still consider that focus slider as an improvement over an IPD slider, since apparently it's too difficult to have both.

We're climbing a ladder towards PCVR nirvana and we're on the first rung. Seems to me people are complaining about not getting to the 3rd rung because, holy shit, a second rung just appeared. And yes, it's a necessary 2nd step that allows people to run CV1 games at the same settings at higher res without higher spec PCs, so is all about attracting more people and some existing CV1 users. Increasing PCVR user base increases software developer involvement, increasing titles available for all headsets.... enthusiast and mainstream alike. This is something no enthusiast headset can do, as we've seen, because of the very small sales numbers of those devices.

OK so some people can only look at the things that aren't fantastic... and will list only those things. Some will list only the good things and there's plenty that's good.

So yeah, I'm off. I'll return when I have a Rift-S to review and will give it a balanced and thorough testing.

Carry on!

The problem is the rift S is not the 2nd rung, it is a box the same height of the first rung, that results you in stepping off the ladder and remaining at the same height, but unfortunately the box was made very cheaply and it collapsed under your feet. Oh no.

Your opinion, take a close look at the specs again. All the specs, not just the ones that you wanted more from.

Edit: Also take the points that I made about the second step being one that attracts more people to VR and in turn more developers which in turn will result in more software, for all headsets.

We're climbing a ladder towards PCVR nirvana and we're on the first rung. Seems to me people are complaining about not getting to the 3rd rung because, holy shit, a second rung just appeared. And yes, it's a necessary 2nd step that allows people to run CV1 games at the same settings at higher res without higher spec PCs, so is all about attracting more people and some existing CV1 users. Increasing PCVR user base increases software developer involvement, increasing titles available for all headsets.... enthusiast and mainstream alike. This is something no enthusiast headset can do, as we've seen, because of the very small sales numbers of those devices.

OK so some people can only look at the things that aren't fantastic... and will list only those things. Some will list only the good things and there's plenty that's good.

So yeah, I'm off. I'll return when I have a Rift-S to review and will give it a balanced and thorough testing.

Carry on!

The problem is the rift S is not the 2nd rung, it is a box the same height of the first rung, that results you in stepping off the ladder and remaining at the same height, but unfortunately the box was made very cheaply and it collapsed under your feet. Oh no.

Your opinion, take a close look at the specs again. All the specs, not just the ones that you wanted more from.

Edit: Also take the points that I made about the second step being one that attracts more people to VR and in turn more developers which in turn will result in more software, for all headsets.

If you disagree with that statement, please explain why.

Or just make a dismissive statement if you wish... whatever.

You are missing one of my points when I created this thread, which is Oculus should have released two PCVR headsets in the Spring. The rift S for your VR newbies and a headset that would appease VR enthusiasts who put their money where there mouth is and want quality. My point is that this headset ignores their current fan base and instead lines their wallets with cash from new-to-VR purchasers. Oculus has also said that any future headsets will likely only have inside-out tracking and this is unacceptable to me.

I didn't miss any points, I was making a comment on the overall malcontent that seems to me to be misplaced.

As I've said in another thread, gen 2 hasn't been cancelled. Rift S is just another headset that VR needs in order to attract more people. Just producing enthusiast headsets isn't sustainable for the PCVR industry.

The current fanbase wants more titles and not just from indies... they (we) need them from the major devs. We want Codemasters to include VR for all their race sims, not just 1. We need Bethesda to include VR from the start in their big-budge games, not just conversions for a couple existing games.

When I make my comments I'm talking about the benefits that Rift-S will have for enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts alike. As for releasing an enthusiast headset at the same time... I couldn't really care less about such timings. Like I said gen 2 hasn't been cancelled. It'll arrive when it's ready. And when we're able to drive such a headset.

Perhaps you can shed some light on how an enthusiast headset could be driven if it was release now? what GPU? what res headset, what refresh rate? what FOV?

In a year to 18 months, when nvidia have produced something with a bigger bang-for-your-buck than the 2080ti (ie 2100 series) then I'll be shouting for gen 2 headsets.

I would be very comforting if Oculus came forward to say there is going to be Rift 2 for the hardcore VR peeps so I can feel reassured. Getting a Rift S and it being some what meh, but not saying anything for those who are hoping for the the bee's knees next gen VR headset is very disappointing. They haven't said what the Rift S is and if there is even going to be a next gen Rift 2. Till I've heard from them there will be a next gen Rift 2 then I'm going to remain angry.